Unique Handle Variations: Design for Mass Production 3D Printing
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июл 2024
- Stop using outdated designs that don't leverage the full potential of modern technology. In this video, we explore designing mass production 3D printing and how it can transform the way we create handles for various products. Say goodbye to wasteful support structures and rough surfaces. Join us as we uncover innovative handle designs that maximize strength, reliability, and aesthetics. Learn to create truly unique and functional products with the power of high-volume 3D printing.
Like and subscribe to the Slant 3D RUclips channel to stay up to date with our latest 3D printing design tutorials and other mass production 3D printing content.
#3dprinting #designtutorial #designfor3dprinting #additivemanufacturing
00:00 The Problem with Traditional Handles
0:38 Stop Using Stone Age Designs
2:05 Ladle Handle
3:00 Chamfered Fin Handle
4:50 Knob Handle
6:14 Ring Handle
7:39 User Experience MATTERS
8:04 S-Curve Handle
9:30 Outro
🔗 IMPORTANT LINKS 🔗
Get a Quote for Your Production Project: www.slant3d.com/
Slant 3D Etsy Plugin: www.slant3d.com/slant3d-etsy-...
Get Our STL's: www.angled.xyz/
Get Affordable High-Quality Filament: www.tangledfilament.com
Try Shapr3D (Use Code: Slant3d): www.shapr3d.com/download?utm_...
Our Favorite Products: www.amazon.com/shop/slant3d
About Slant 3D
🏭 High-Volume 3D Printing: Scalability Meets Flexibility
Slant 3D's Large-Scale 3D Print Farms utilize 1000's of FDM 3D printers working 24/7 to offer limitless scalability and unparalleled flexibility. Whether it's 100 or 100,000 parts, our system can handle it reliably, while still allowing for real-time design updates, ensuring products evolve with the times. This adaptability is key in today's fast-paced world.
🌿 Sustainable Manufacturing: Eco-Friendly Efficiency
Embrace a system that drastically reduces carbon emissions by eliminating carbon-intensive steps in the supply chain, such as global shipping and warehousing. Our approach minimizes this footprint, offering a more sustainable manufacturing option.
⚙️ Digital Warehouses: Parts On-Demand
Think of print farms as a "Digital Warehouse", meaning we can store your parts digitally on a server rather than physically on a shelf. parts are available on-demand, reducing the need for extensive physical inventory.
Produced by Slant Media
As an Amazon Associate, I earn commission from qualifying purchases. 
Наука
One feature of the cup handle you are ignoring and is even more important than design and that is to create a handle that has good mass separation from the hot liquid part of the cup. This is to prevent, slow or at least cool those parts of the handle that are in direct contact with the container to eliminate heat creep. I like your last design but it poses very poor structure near the container part and will introduce a hot surface that will burn the most sensitive skin on your fingers, that being the back of them. Consideration for heat dissipation should be a critical design feature when coming up with the new upgraded handle to ensure comfort and in this day and age the need to print warning labels for the ignorant among us that are just looking for a reason to sue someone! OK so that last part is a bit hyperbolic but then again depending on the case use it should at least be considered. I am really enjoying the creative dialog this is bringing to the industry, keep us thinking, innovating and improving! Awesome new series!
Yeah most of these devices would most likely hit the meat of your hand with spray when you pick it up at the wrong initial angle.
@@Mawyman2316 I am referring to the radiant heat from the wall of the main vessel. Not because of a clumsy accident of hot liquid spilling over the top onto your hand.
Came down here to say the same thing, you have to consider all the advantages of the old design before just writing it off as stone age
Yeah, this guy is... not smart. At all. So many bad ideas predicated on "I think I can reinvent the wheel" and it just doesn't.
@@facenameple4604so not smart he created the world’s largest print farm.
So after this, we can all agree that the "Stone Age" handle is actually the best one because it is the only one really functional, right?
Yes.
yes . after the stone age one in silver place goes no handle
totally
And also for lefties... the last one wasnt very mass production for them
@@phirulaysyeah I was like, do I print one for me and one for everyone else, do I throw comfort through the window and use it with my non dominant hand, or do I use it upside down?
It may save on production costs when 3d printing, but this sounds more like changing the requirements to meet the tool rather than finding the right tool to meet the requirements
100%. This is totally backwards.
Spot on.
You are correct, but your argument is reductionist, completely ignoring the fact that additive manufacturing may be the *only* tool available for the job. When humanity is heading to our celestial neighbours, what is the bigger brain’s adaptation - refusing to alter a mechanism for the most efficient usage, or saying “I want a round handle so we’ll be packing a ceramics forge and that’s that”.
@@annix493 Additive manufacturing, as long as you aren't stuck in a literal cave with your sole possession being an Ender 3, will never be your only tool available for the job. I can melt a strip of plastic and weld it to a cup if that's really what needed to be done, as long as I have near any source of decent heat. Or, manufacturing tools can be made on-site.
I'm not a product designer nor CAD pro and even I can agree. He's got it backwards!
As someone who actually has multiple degrees in design fields (architecture, art history, and industrial engineering) and also has been 3D printing at home since 2015 (Used lithographic printing machines back in 2001-2004 for undergrad but that doesn't count in my mind), there are far too many people that get a 3D printer and watch a few youtube tutorials on Fusion 360 and then think they understand the basis for the actual design.
The old adage of form follows function is meant to be about the user, not the tool that makes the item. As such, this entire video was developed under a completely faulty pretense of "mass production 3D printing." Nothing that is truly mass-produced would be designed based on the tooling requirements of 3D printing as it is just not economical or logical to allow a slow, albeit useful, means of production to dictate production. Instead, mass production implies meeting demand or creating a large supply at a minimal cost. In both cases, the design would be dictated by customer wants and then (shudder to type) value-engineered down to a price point that can be mass-produced.
The end result with the "optimized" clip handle does nothing to innovate or move the design or use of the mug forward and actually alienates people to only hold with a single hand. The design does not solve a known issue in the customer base such as people with physical disabilities and actually reduces options for holding with limited grip strength and finger mobility. Lastly, the design, if actually meant to be mass-produced, would still require the development of a three-piece mold (or more likely a two-piece mold with a removable piston for the inside of the cup). As a result, the cup is not easier to produce in large quantities, does not improve user experience, and does not open the product to a previously unavailable customer base. Instead, the design helps justify the use of a production system (desktop-sized, FDM 3D printers) that was never meant or developed for the type of production this video proposes to support.
3D printing has its place - impossible to produce and complex geometries, small-batch products that would otherwise not justify tooling costs and time, rapid prototyping/design iteration, and/or access to production methods for the masses. Waxing poetically about "space-age" design ideas and then not actually pursuing anything about good design as a medium for future-proofing or improving on historical design paradigms ain't it, sorry.
This is exactly what was going through my head. These designs don't seem to have the end user in mind and feel like solutions chasing a problem rather than the other way around
Yesssss exactly. The regular design isn't bad, the printers are just bad at producing that specific design. The regular design persists because people actually use it or appreciate it in some non-functional way.
masterful breakdown
This youtuber is a clown. Specially on youtube shorts. always trying to make it sound like 3D printing can be a good ultra high scale production solution. in many shorts even saying that it is better then injection molding (for the dumbest reasons) He owns a 3D printing company so...
Worst thing is - his ball-design isn't new either. Have seen something like that made from tin with a wooden ball - so structural sound, easier to manufacture, heat resistant (and of course also available in ceramics).
3d printing is great for prototyping, creating complex shapes and tinkering. But mass production?
Yeah not so much. There are of course additive manufacturing methods like laser sintering: that can produce parts that are close in their properties to parts manufactured by other methods.
Watching this video made me realize how ingenious the original ring handle is, non of the new designs had comfort or functionality of the original simple design we take for granted.
I don't think this man has ever held an actual mug in his natural life.
There's a reason we settled on the loop handle and it wasn't 'because pottery'.
I don't think I'll ever use the handle designs that are shown in this video yet there is immense value in the premise of going through different handles as he does.
Just because something has been the standard for a long time doesn't mean you shouldn't question the design choices of that feature. New technology incurs new optimizations and at the scale of mass 3d printing, these choices shown in the video are valid analysis paths. I wouldn't say any of the handles are close to a production-level design choice, but if one keeps iterating on a concept, they might come across a handle that is both ergonomic, suffers less printing issues, and is quicker to print.
TLDR: by focusing on literally the handle designs, you missed the point of the video
@@alkaliaurangedude is trying to force 3d printing as a solution. The solution is to pick the technology that works best. Not force a solution to fit your chosen tech.
@@SaltyChickenDip If that's your perspective, then don't bother 3d printing anything that hasn't been 3d printed before. If an existing solution works for you, why even try to 3d print it then?
In the meantime, people who tinker with new technologies will continue to think about novel methods, optimizations and features. Once they've figured them out, then you can come here into the comment section and talk down to people about "already solved" design choices.
In case you haven't figured it out yet, the cup is an analogy. The dude in the video couldn't care less about mass producing 3d printed cups lol
@@alkaliaurange Nah, the video is badly missing an important point: don't reinvent the wheel just for the sake of reinventing the wheel when there already exist a proper wheel design for the scenario. The video premise is circular handle is bad on 3D printing production. Which is valid, and no, we not going to stuck into mug and handle, as like you said, it just to illustrate a point.
However, the proper solution is not to immediately jump into designing weird, compromising handles just because it can be printed with 3d printing better than original circular handle while ignoring other aspects of handle designs and functions like many other commenters pointed out. In the end, his solutions only works well for 1 aspect which is 3d printable, but not working well as its main function: a handle. Again, this is not about mug and handle, you can apply this when trying to create new "revolutionary" designs and simply ignoring or forgetting what the main function it should have first and foremost.
What should've been done is looking at regular alternatives first if it can meet the original constraint (i.e. 3d printing). The L shaped handle fit that criteria and easily 3d printable, so we can just go with it and done. No spending R&D for weird handle that not even functioning as well as the already exist and simpler L handle. And even can go logically further as if the circular design is bad, use the wedge design instead of full circle for the handle. Make the handle more straights instead of vertically curved that is the biggest weakness of 3d printing. Add more thickness to the handle part to increase strength while still keeping it a comfortable size to grip. And we just design a new handle that is 3d printable and still function well as handle as we don't need to alter the very basic principle in the first place.
That is how this video should be. If you need to alter a design, don't jump straight into reinventing the wheel with radical ideas that you don't even think how it will affect other functionality that you so much tunnel visioned on. What you need to do is to look for existing proven alternatives that already solved your problem first, and if you do need to make your own design, better to make it an iteration of existing proven principles instead of going completely radical because they are proven for many reasons.
He wanted to make a youtube video, but had nothing interesting to talk about. This video is silly. There's ways to make a handled cup via 3d printing, that conforms to the standards we have for cups. Trying to reinvent the wheel, is never going to work. Just make the print, a two part print, and join them together.
I mean... You could have just flattened the top of the hoop and made the rest of the handle at a printable angle. Most of the designs you showed put ergonomics, including heat dissipation, second.
Yeah this was my first idea. I am really surprised he overlooked this. Though he did also say a consideration was the print head having to jump across the gap with a vertical hoop.
Two other things to keep in mind:
1: ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOMMODATION. You are planning to mass produce this object, which means it will likely end up in the hands of people with motor function issues. The old-school ring helps a lot with this. Arthritic hands can grab the body of the cup and count on the ring as a sort of backup grip, just to name one example. Modern techniques can rewrite the rules and make even more easy-to-use and accessible objects. Not everybody is lucky enough to have normal hands.
2: Handedness. The S-design only works for righties. Boo.
while i was watching the video i was like: " And the elderly and disable peaple?"
Not just lefties, but righties already holding something in their dominant hand as well.
I am right handed but I often drink using my left hand when writing or using the mouse, so this design doesn't work for me either.
"Reinventing the wheel but forgetting the axel."
Especially since every continent is flooded with manufacturing equipment to make coffee mugs by the millions out of plastic, glass, ceramic, metal, and every other imaginable material.
If you want to leave your mark on the coffee cup world, get a pottery wheel, not a 3D printer!
The simplest design that works exactly like the loop is to use an L shaped handle. So take the first design and just add a vertical lever to the horizontal one. It doesn't matter if you're printing it upside down or not as long as the structure is optimal. All the other handles you showed will require an insulating layer between the cup and the handle.
I was immediately thinking this as he went through all the other designs. The L shaped handle is already in wide use on mugs. This is like trying to reinvent the wheel.
I thought so, L shaped handle should be mentioned as it is more user friendly than S curve one
I think it would be too weak
@@grandmasteryoda5485 You'd probably have to include extra support where the L connects (like some sort of wedge), yeah... or, hear me out-
make TWO L curves, one being upside down, and merge them to form a [ ! This way there's 2 connection points to distribute the force the cup+contents put on the handle!
...now where have I seen that before? (not being sarcastic toward you, I'm being sarcastic to the video)
A lot of good ideas, however the last s curve handle is limited to right handed use and makes for a very awkward grip for lefthanded users.
Not just that, it's basically useless for disabled people(depending on the disability)
@@facenameple4604 Yep, both of those reasons I though of instantly as well. I'd probably go off the bottom of the part in a 45° angle and then continue with a classic handle design for exactly these reasons.
You could make it look extra goofy and add 2 handles for either hand.
One thing I've noticed is that he's handling the measuring cups empty. The only true test of the handle designs is under load. Most of these designs would fail under use because they are not designed to compensate for what effect that a load has on the design and how the body actually works. Many "futuristic" and "artistic" designs forget about why certain functional designs exist.
lefties have to use it upside down
This video could be a very good video if framed only as proposing better option for 3D printable handles. However, instead it dismisses any other manufacturing technique as outdated and thus the handle design as outdated. The reality is that while ceramics have been around for thousands of years, they still remain the best option for many use cases. Even for plastics alone, injection molding is a superior technique for many use cases, especially at high volume where the price of molds (which absolutely can create that ball handle design) are economical. Of course for smaller scale manufacturing than it'd take to make a mold cost effective as well as for prototyping, 3D printing wins out, which means scale of production would likely be a very important factor in design. Basically, this video does exactly what it tells the viewer to not do and puts a round peg in a square hole. And that transforms it from a truly great video to a truly infuriating one to watch.
Yeah, and glass is pretty cheap too.
Also, for sanitary purposes, ceramics > plastic resin any day. I don't care how many times a manufacturer tells me that their material is food grade. I will always prefer ceramics/glass for food storage, containers.
@@ellenripley4837 Yeah. Even if it's true, there's no many situations in which someone would prefer using plastics
he keeps saying "space age technology" but there's 0 situation where i would CHOOSE to use a plastic mug for a hot drink. i do not trust that stuff
See, the biggest issue with all of this is that they don't allow for a wrapping motion where you actually grab the cup or mug around the outside. All the handles are designed as just that, solely a handle. But the ring handle is not just for holding onto on it's own, it provides support for the hand (think like a pop socket on a phone) when grasping the whole object as well. You can see this by the way you grasp many of the cups you've created when showing off the handle, you have to hold in in a very uncomfortable position because of the handle shape taking up so much space and being connected all the way down the cup.
I don't think he's talking about just mugs. That's just an example. He's talking about design in general, and showing you how you can rethink traditional designs. What if it's a handle on a desk lamp, a drawer, an electronic device, etc?
@@darrennew8211 My point is that it isn't universal. They function sure, but there are so many purposes that our current handles have which are simply not addressed by him. Additionally, for things that aren't designed to be lifted we do actually have other handles already that we do already mass produce which have none of the issues of a handle with a hole in it. That design is not prominent whatsoever unless we are talking about mugs. He is solving a problem we have already solved with materials that are worse and more expensive than those we are already using.
Let's look at a drawer as an example. Most drawers use a knob or similar solid handle. These handles are already moulded and mass produced from plastic. There is precisely zero upside to 3D printing or his bad handle designs in comparison to moulded solid plastic handles that we already have.
@@aukora129 Well, first, he runs a 3d printing company, so sure, he's going to talk about how to do it with 3d printing. Second, if you're mass-3d printing something, it's probably something we don't already have solutions for. I'm taking the video with a grain of salt, and listening to it as "here's some of the problems you might find in parts of your designs, and ways to think about how to solve them." I'm not watching it as "here's how to design a 3d-printed coffee mug." He'd probably be better off making videos like "here's the sorts of things you should be using 3d printing to mass produce" or using obfuscated examples from actual stuff his customers have submitted rather than something like a coffee mug that nobody in their right mind would mass produce on a 3d printer.
I like the part where you intentially made the first cup look terrible, thicker layer lines, far too much temp, terrible supports etc... just so you can compare them to the "better designs" where you clearly use lower layer lines and proper calibrated temps so you can "prove" the design is better. It looks just like a completely uncalibrated ender 3 for the first cup and a Bambu Lab printer for the others just to be extra deceptive.
It's pretty much directly lying by stating the design is bad when you put an actual symetrical ring as your handle, when I don't own a single cup using a design that looks even similar to that and I could very easily print that exact same STL perfectly using the dreaded support you left hanging onto the cup for dramatic affect. A normal cup will have an elongated hole so you can grip the mug itself and use the handle for support if you have weak hands.
I really hope people don't watch this video and think this is truly where the world is headed, otherwise idocracy really did predict the future..
Don't worry, every comment I've seen is relentlessly (and rightfully) dunking on this guy and calling him out on this BS
Seriously, and it's not even a good handle if you made the cup from clay! It's thin, flimsy, doesn't have a good connection point to the cup, there's a reason very few handles are Actually ring shaped!
you want to know the best part? its not on purpose except for the lighting, the prints their farm puts out look quite bad sometimes
Most of those designs rely on friction for keeping the mug up, forcing you to hold much tighter than a conventional handle, which would get even harder once the cup was filled with liquid (and would become impossible for someone with limited strength/dexterity like children or someone with arthritis). A good way to test weaknesses like this is to try using the cup with your non-dominant hand coated in oil as it simulates low dexterity use without needing to gather up testers of different demographics (although getting those testers later on in the design process is necessary, just not at the initial stage where your rapidly itterating like this).
The test you propose would also have caught the other issue many here have brought up, that the last handle is right hand only.
I understand the argument that the traditional shape is not good for 3D printing but that doesn't justify saying its antiquated and needs to be phased out. Rather just not suited for 3D printing. Very interesting alternative designs. I do not feel they would accommodate arthritis very well. The antiquated style allows for bone structure to support the cup when finger strength and limited dexterity is not able too. The ball is my favorite of the ideas.
Also, with some tweeks, the hoop can be made to be 3d printed easly. Changes the bottom of the hoop for something more squared and starting with the buttom of the mug.
I appreciate optimizing designs for 3d printing but I think the risk of printing two islands is being overstated. If a printer can't do that reliably I think the bigger difficulty will be producing a print that will hold liquid.
If we aren't worried about two islands we can make a traditional handle and limit our overhang to 45 degrees so it prints properly.
You failed at copying the handle of the "stone age" mug. The handle you designed is entirely circular, which required supports. If you actually look at the handles of "stone age" mugs, they are shaped more like half of a heart shape and the 2 points where the handle connects to the mug have chamfers built into them, I suspect this would remove the need for extra supports when 3D printing. Maybe the reason the handle design hasn't changed, is because it actually works if done correctly.
He also did not make a large measuring cup handle, I.E. a 7 could be very easily made and meets the important requirement of the hand holding a cup being parallel to said cup. The second ring he made absolutely fails this and is bad design for a drinking cup.
What about left-handed users in that last prototype?
some of the designs were clearly imagined by a designer, not an engineer as there are multiple auxiliary constraint that are not always fulfilled... s handle brings the outside of your fingers too close to a very hot mug, also it's only useful for right handed folks :D
that said, there were quite a few good points to remember when constructing sth to be printed! :)
The problem is that part of the handles purpose is to hang off your hand. You don’t need a death grip on your mug for it to not slip out your hand.
I think that there are some people commenting that are missing the point of the video. This video is about design optimization for available manufacture processes, not optimizing a coffee mug handle for 3d printing. I agree with the point that using additive manufacturing to mass-produce a coffee mug would be impractical and unnecessarily costly compared to existing mass-production of such products already, that is objectively missing the point of the video. Great job demonstrating design optimization, keep doing good man.
Last cup can be used only by right hand.
It’s crazy how the loop design is actually still the most comfortable.
Some of the features of the handle do have to do with the shape of the hand and how our body works. Just because one handle design is better for the printer doesn't mean that it's properly engineered if it's hard to hold or manage.
Exactly. the traditional cup handle allows for endurance of weaker hands, or for holding cups for longer periods of time. There is a reason why its traditional
@@fcasanova3 we also have a multitude of handle designs that work for various conditions. The handle on a framing hammer is different from the handle on a mug because of function. All are designed to be functional in the hand for the particular application. The problem with all the handles shown here is that they're purely based on working with the material forgetting that function and purpose often outweigh designing for the material. However, as a general point I do understand that we have to try to optimize any functional design to work with the materials we are using.
I think one of the big benefits of the original designs is that it requires less use of grip strength than the newer designs. My personal solutions would be to print a ladle style handle and then use hot air and a buck to soften and form the handle to a classic D ring shape. This is similar to the stone age process of steam bending wood in order to make curvy shapes without sacraficing structural integrity.
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss stone age technology. stone age tech is often very thoughtful and creative and novel. The clovis spear head for example with its central fluting is thought to have been designed to attach a heavier mass spear head to a thinner shaft. Thus increasing the energy unloaded on impact while still allowing the thiner dart to flex and maintain its course.
The final handle design is very good but it does introduce a problem of its own. It is created with right handed people in mind and with around 10% of the world being left handed it could create a more challenging experience for a decently large group of people where possibly there would need to be a left handed version which just adds complexity to a drinking cup.
While you have some good points, I think that there's two things you kinda overlooked.
1. ambidexterity of design. That last one would need a mirrored version for left-handed users. That doubles your skus for that one product to meet the needs of a minor, but not insignificant portion of your potential customer base. It might be okay for a manufacture on demand situation, but if you're doing a retail store front, then that's twice the products you have to manage and stock.
2. While you mentioned aesthetics as an issue with the more traditional ring-type mug handle in regards to the finish, almost all of the alternatives you presented have an almost brutalist design to them, except the ball handle on which feels more Bauhaus. Brutalism is, I think rightly, derided as an ugly, depressing style that seems to be dying out, thankfully.
The thing is that we like nice things. We like things that look pleasing or that are beautiful. There is something that is just nice about that traditional ring-style mug handle that the alternatives, at least as shown, lack. From this perspective, that handle design hasn't been in use for thousands of years just because that's the way we've always made and designed them, but because we like the shape of it. It feels good in our hands, and it offers a lot of functionality in a simple design. It may not be the best fit for 3d-printing, but I don't think you did the alternatives that are better fits any favors by not giving them a more aesthetic pass in your design process.
As for the ring handle, you can make it more manufacturable on 3d printers by employing some of the features from the other designs you showed. Support the bottom of the handle like you did in the first design, maybe give it some curve to make it more comfortable on any fingers that part may rest on with use. Turn the circle into an ellipse and angle it towards the cup. This will help minimize the shallow overhangs you get with a circle and also make it more ergonomic by better matching the shape your fingers make while partially closed. You still have a part of the print where stringing, blobbing, and print failures are a risk, but you can't design every part to avoid those and it's a much more manageable risk than the overhangs and supports. (And to be honest, if you're printer isn't tuned to prevent the stringing and blobbing, it's probably not ready to be used for mass manufacture anyway.)
Anyway, those are my thoughts on this, for what it's worth. I'm not a product designer, and the most engineer thing about me is that I know some physics and my degree program was part of the college of engineering at my university. I do understand art, aesthetics, and how important they can be, and I think your alternatives do miss the mark there.
While I'm here, I know you did a video on making snaps and designing them for 3d printing, I was wonder if you could do the same for keying designs for assembly. There are times where you don't want a snap (permanent assembly or something that's supposed to come apart easily) and wondered if you have any tips there.
Well said
I was going to point out too that the final design doesn't work for left-handed people.
We do exist!
this
I agree. The "Traditional" design presented really doesn't look like a real coffee cup handle. It is essentially an exaggerated stereotype, which sort of makes the "Not this" part of the design evaluation really more of a straw man than a serious comparator.
In particular, the rounded bottom of the handle with concave up toward the body of the cup can be cured with a much less radical design.
I am not bothered by the radical alternatives. New forms can stand or fall on their own and the ease of experimentation IS one of the great things about 3dp.
I am bothered by the presentation that assumes that only radical departures from the time-honored form is worth noting. There are reasons besides constructability in clay that we like the traditional handle, including the ways people like to use them.
I have to say though, even as a lefty who would be the odd man out, I think I like the asymmetrical design 😊
Even without talking about dexterity and aesthetics, the design has one simple task. It has to work effectively with the body to control the load. For example, although the ball handle can work, you actually have less control of the load and more strain on the body when in use as well as the fact that it forces you to hold it in a way that contradicts how the body operates. As far as a handle that's meant for hanging as opposed to holding by hand or is part of a machine interchangeable connection the ball handle would work just fine. All the handles shown have the same simplistic problems of not being effective handles for human use under most circumstances. The core is to know what purpose your handle has before designing it. Certain features work better as tool connection points. Others work if it's just meant for hanging or initial grab of the object and it's not meant as a human interface control surface. The pinch handle, for example, has been around for a long time but is rarely used because it's a strain on the grip to hold and is really only effective for very light loads.
I understand where this is coming from and it has some good points, but this more comes off as 'everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer' but the hammer is 3d printing. A 3-piece injection mold would be able to make a solid and durable plastic cup with a normal handle feature as well as most all shown examples? While making a product that is waterproof and has smooth surface that are easy to clean, and therefor won't harbor bacteria. These trade-offs are "compromising on the experience" as you put it, in different ways. This is more a case of 3D printing is not a technology that fits uniquely well to make a drinking cup out of.. maybe a dry ingredients scoop/measurement etc, but that's about the limit I'd ever want my dish-wares to be printed with layer lines to them, I engineer a lot of random things with my printers, but a cup for average beverage consumption being printable, is more a problem in search of an answer as far as practicality. But it's good as a though experiment. Maybe with ABS and vapor smoothing? Though that's yet another process.
This is the kind of guy to make logical leaps and strange excuses to try and reinvent the wheel
There is another method that was overlooked, most all of the designs were fundamentally diffrent. There is still the tuning option to the core design. There is no fundamental reason for the hoop design not to be able to transition into the lower portion of the cup leaving you with more of a ) profile than a C profile.
I like your final example the most, however, I think modularity could easily be an alternative solution. If youre worried about layer lines and adhesion, simply print the cup or whatever with a slot where you can later attach whatever handle you want. Design your desired handle, give it the appropriate connector, and then you can print it without worrying about any overhangs before finally attaching the two. You'd get the best of both worlds, and you could even use multiple handles with one product depending on what you're using it for. Kind of like those detachable pan handles
I have a feeling that once you get through so many design iterations, you'll make a full circle (pun intended) and find that the original design just works once you find an appropriate printer or algorithm for better printing, or even better filament, etc.
I think the best solution in this case is to get rid of 3d printing and mold it instead, as long as it makes impossible to make a product with good UX. Another option is to make the cup assembled from cup and handle parts
Yep. Print the handle flat, and attach it to cup. Not all prints need to be a single print. In fact, most would benefit from being a few prints due to needing to be stressed in different directions.
yep.
Interesting ideas but I think there’s more flexibility and creativity available in the traditional loop handle.
A lot of these designs also don’t scale up well for larger jugs, teapots or even mugs. Once you’ve got a decent amount of liquid in your vessel the weight even just a couple hundred ml can be too much for a lot of grips. The loop is simple enough for kids to use, strong enough for people with disabilities and is good for both left and right handed people.
I feel like a major feature of the loop handle is also the heat isolation from the hot beverage. the final design you landed on has the back of your hands ( the most sensitive part) directly pressed against the non-isolated, heated material of the cup.
i love that you look like a bro but are actually intelligent. real enthusiast energy
Imagine printing the last design with ceramics then baking it- omg I'd love one
I feel like this is more a demonstration of how 3D printing is not a viable replacement for every other form of manufacturing moreso than it is that other forms of manufacturing are outdated and products must be designed to fit the needs of 3D printing. Most of these handles would be extremely uncomfortable to use at any size larger than a measuring cup.
youre doing great and your insight is truly appreciated. i like how you think outside the box regardless of the project youre showcasing. and as for the huge amount of people exclusively criticizing in the comments, CHILL OUT. its a freaking plastic mug and people are talking about heat transfer.. my brother in christ you are not supposed to fill this with coffee and drink it just so you know.. hes simply showing alternative design features to get you thinking..
Well said!
Advantage of that first one that most of your proposed alternatives lack is just being able to hook it on a finger and maintain function with the hand. Important feature, in my opinion. Always too much to carry.
1. Just make the bottom of the hoop at a printable angle.
2. You could print it on its side with the handle on the print bed. You just need to find a way to integrate flat surfaces so there is sufficient contact.
3. Print two flat parts on the top and bottom and connect them with a pillar
4. Have the cup on its side with the handle tangential to that side so it lays flat on the print bed
The last design eliminated 10% of people - southpaws like me.
Good riddance
a potential problem I see with all of them that would eliminate overhang is when they might get slippery there is nothing on top of your fingers they are mostly friction fit
You propose some great ideas, while not directly applicable to a mug as others have said, is still very useful for handles in other things. Thanks!
Last mug is going to be more difficult for left handed people to use. Impossible, no. Comfortable and secure, not as much.
I think this clearly shows the difference between designers, engineers and builders. Designers dream up an idea, engineers work to make it structurally sound and builders throw half of it out and replace it with practicable solutions.
The traditional design is horrible for FDM, fully agree there.
But it's still pretty decent for SLS. No need to go all Bauhaus on the design if you pick a different process.
Plus for FDM, there are still workarounds to have a more traditional handle design without weird scraggly overhangs. For example, if you open the handle instead of making it a closed ring, and bring it all the way down to the built plate, you solve a lot of issues without deviating too far from user expectations. Kind of like your ladle handle design, but with a hook.
How about taking a classic grip but with a maximum angle of 45° from the foot to the top? It would be just as stable and you could even put a finger through it. Or you make the hole additionally not round but diamond-shaped so the hole also has ~45 °.
This is better. But it still creates the weakness on the outer spine of the handle. Meaning that that tool-head has to stop and then move to a new location rather than continously moving through the part.
@@slant3d I guess that's true. Whereas I don't think you can get enough weight in a cup like that to make it critical.
I feel like so many people are missing the point of this video… he’s not trying to reinvent the mug, he’s just giving you techniques / ideas to keep in mind for your own designs, and talking through how to think of problems unique to 3D printing and possible solutions
How would you 3d print a food safe product? I thought they were too porous.
Very interesting ideas and thoughts
Thanks
Curious how did you print the bottom of the cup? Was that a horizontal overhang? Very interesting video, thank you for taking the time to put this together!
No overhangs, it's just a fillet with the bottom cut off slightly.
The video is not about mugs, it's about you cant pretend to use the principles of a technology with another completely different. It's about understanding how it works and adapting to find the best way of use. I think
Most videos are about how you should design for the process, when thats almost always unanimously considered the wrong decision. He took the "engineers never ask the machinists before they make prints" and came up with, "Hey you engineers, stop making things that fill your needs, instead make them so I can make them the easiest."
@@Mawyman2316 If you are the engenieer and the machinist, the vídeo would have sense (my experience). It's more about use the correct machine to the correct design and viceversa
@@Mawyman2316 While I agree with you, I do like seeing alternatives that I can implement in my own designs that I print at home.
@@RAMII19780529 And that is absolutely fair. I reccomend you follow some of the less exciting mechanism channels to find some pretty neat stuff, usually its just short clips of them in action so they tend not to be large viewerbases.
Reminds me about how Bill Hammack's new book pointed out that the material in question isn't incidental, but is central to something's design.
Regardless of the ergonomics or suitablility of FDM to mass produce mugs, the presenter provided a good introduction to DfAM: design for additive manufacturing.
I don't think most of these designs provide enough leverage to comfortably hold the cup level while it is full of liquid. I'd have to have some part of my hand against the side of the cup below the handle just to support it, which could be unpleasant if the liquid is hot.
Always good to see people working through design reasons and requirements. Despite the fact the video started with the phrase "design is no longer relevant". 🤔
But he didn't actually work around design reasons or requirements. He worked around how he could make something not needing/wanting to be 3D printed and then changed it to meet his limited production options. That is literally the wrong way to design anything that is consumer/public-facing.
It would be like if a developer was asked to make a house and gave the customer three cardboard boxes taped together. Sure the developer could try to talk about how the design for a house hasn't changed since the dark ages but their design was better because of "reasons." When in reality, the developer already has a bunch of cardboard and tape to get rid of so they only thought of a solution that would be possible with that limited materials set.
Now how could you bring 5 jugs of beer at once with one hand in Octoberfest with that?
When designing a product production method requirements surely are important and I am sure all presented options are better for 3d printing but at the same time you have to keep in mind that a person is supposed to use it: the ergonomics on all cups are really bad each for a different reason and some for many... again the purpose of the handle is to hold it and move it comfortably but also for heat dissipation.
We don't make ceramic cups the same way as they did thousands of years ago because of a limitation of ceramics, we do it that way because no one has come up with a better design for thousands of years
"Design for the technology, using the advantages of the technology", not the weakness of the technology.
An exceptionally well done design topic with a great progression of key design talking points.
Thanks for watching
Pick the tools to reach your requirements not change your requirements to match your tools. This is backward designing.
@@SaltyChickenDip Great design is both. Its about striking a balance. (material costs and time vs. tool cost and time)
@@AerialWaviator That isn't design, that is value engineering. Design is about solving the problem set given to you by the client and/or intended user. Then you work back from the optimal design until you find something that is producible within a reasonable time, budget, and resource availability. If you only design based on the constraints of the production you understand/have access to, you will never grow as a designer, never gain new customers, and eventually be left to serve a population that no longer has a demand to the services and designs you can supply.
Look to the auto industry trying to make the transition to electric power vs combustion engines as a perfect example of this paradigm. The companies that tried to sneak into the market by taking an existing car from their lineup and just putting an electric motor in it have had piss-poor sales and have created a gap in their traditional market where others have jumped in. Now those giants are trying to play catch-up and having to completely retool their business models and distribution chains in order to prevent bleeding off more sales. They all believed that a car is just four wheels and a power unit that gets people from A to B. As such they produced cars without inspiration or understanding of what the public was asking for (or with a lack of caring). A bunch of start-ups and other car companies that accepted EVs as a segment customers were demanding actually went out and tried to find out what was wrong with the current car and driving experience. Then they went back and they designed solutions to those problems regardless of the production methods available to them.
Now while a number of those start-up companies are now failing, the solutions they developed and promises they made to customers have pushed the consumer to expect a better driving experience and the entire industry has changed in the last 5-10 years. This video never asked, "does the current coffee mug handle fail the consumer?" Instead, it started with the statement, "the current coffee mug is hard to print." All design after that statement was done to address a problem that was self-imposed. The solutions were about making printing easier, not making the drinking and holding experience new or better.
That stoneage handle allows me to carry 2 cups of coffee and a plate of pastry with one hand, leaving the other hand free to open doors. It is like the wheel: a finished design.
3D printing on the other hand has still a long road ahead.
What about using the ladle handle but duplicating it at the bottom with a vertical cylinder connecting the two? It keeps the loopiness but makes it easier to print and more structurally sound.
3D printing is only really viable for prototyping and low volume production, not mass production. Traditional manufacturing processes are faster and cheaper at scale.
Incorrect. Printing is able to produce at the same scale and rate as any other process. That is why we build factories likes our 3000 machine Megafarm
@@slant3d Not without sacrificing efficiency, quality, and mechanical properties of the final product.
@@Nuffle Exactly. Even at small scale, we can crank out thousands of parts per day in a few hundred square feet of factory space (multi material, precise, and even labeled ready to ship) with basic molding tools, cnc machining, etc.
I think the video was presented well and I liked the sort of thought experiment of redesigning a loop handle in a way that would be functional for 3D printing, but as everyone else has mentioned it just doesn't seem like a good tool for the job...
One tip to everyone about 3D printing (on a small scale) and such while we are here.. you wouldn't want to do this for mass production because it involves making extra parts and 3d printing just isn't a good technology for making cups with, but always remember that you can print multiple parts and assemble them. This is a good example of a case where you could print the loop on its side and then attach it to the side of the cup section with something like fasteners or slots. It's tempting to want to print a part in one go, but sometimes that isn't the best solution.
Some interesting and valid points, but you completely missed two of the most important reasons to use a loop-type handle: security and leverage.
Security: by putting your fingers through the loop and closing them, you create two interlocking rings that require *very* little force to maintain.
Leverage: Your top finger in the loop becomes a fulcrum, with the weight of the cup pressing against the back of the rest of your fingers. This--again--makes for a very stable and secure platform that requires *very* little force to maintain.
Rather than a small loop at the top of the cup, I would make as long a loop as possible that tapers down to the base of the cup *and* tapers up to the top of the loop. (Think half a heart-shape.) This would be easy to print and offer good security and leverage. As well, by making a loop large enough for multiple fingers, the user can grip the loop instead of letting the cup rest against the back of the fingers, which prevents discomfort if the cup is filled with a hot liquid.
As well, you didn't talk about how multiple cups might work together. If you include an inset on the bottom of each, they can naturally stack together for a more desirable design. (Bonus points if you add nubs & channels so they can be rotated to lock together.)
Cheers!
Can make a mug that's printed slightly tilted to increase surface area for the handle. Handle can be 7-shaped to print in all orientations too. Small overhang with dripping top layer can be mitigated by slicing properly. Gives familiar aesthetics, as well as ease of print.
This man has never seen a wine glass before. None of these designs would work for a larger or heavy liquid filled teacup as even the ergonomic designs would be strenuous to hold. You’d potentially also burn your hands on some of them. To solve all the problems you bring up, just attach a stick and a stand to the bottom of a cup. The idea was there with the ladle, but then again that doesn’t work for larger cups.
Take perfectly fuctional design. Create a problem. Sell the solution to said problem. Win?
Correction. Take an unmanfuacturable design and show some manufacturable alterantives
You do know that if you just changed a regular handle into a right angle triangle tip down that would accomplish most of your goals right?
I would perhaps like to see how one would design a PLA, PETG, ABS or Nylon part to be as strong as an aluminium part. Use something fairly mechanically stressed, but so common that everyone knows what it is, like a bicycle handlebar bracket or something. It has to bear stress, but is out in the open enough that space constraints are of no object, so it can be as large as necessary.
Speaking as a fellow mug user, I wouldn't want to drink anything hot out of a plastic cup
Your last handle has a serious issue of only being able to be handled in one hand. I can only ever use my right or left hand with this handle, depending on which direction the curve goes.
The ring in the horizontal plane is *_really_* good for picking or pulling something out that has little clearance around it. Say, something at the bottom of a rather large toolbox. You have to reach your hand rather far down, but the bottom of your toolbox is cluttered as always. With this design, all you need to do is put your finger tip in the handle hole and curl the end of your finger and you've got it. No scattering the surrounding bits and tools to reach your hand around to the handle, no taking things out if it's too cluttered to heap your tools to the side.l
The last one is only right handed, gotta have a specific one for the other hand and symmetry of the original one is infinitly immportant, its not that left handed people cant use right handed cup, its that we regulary use our cups with both hands. Theres an idea. manufacture cup and handle separatly, and then glue them together. Cup can have an holes to align the handle, you can even design a locking system to make it more secure. you can melt part of the plastic before glueing them together.
would resin printing help with any of the problems seen in a traditional mug or make it worse?
Worse in volume production purpose as with resin you must use lot of support for any print and not to mention much more complicated post processing after printing.
in showing off every alternative you can think of, you have proved the ingenious design of the standard hoop handle. none of the alternatives you showed were better, more comfortable, or even good in general. they all present accessibility issues, and just are less comfortable or functional. all of them make the mug much more likely to slip from your grip.
sure, the original "stone age" handle design might be difficult to 3d print, but its objectively significantly more functional than any other design.
I think the reason the Loop one works while the others dont is because the loop requires the least amount of effort to hold
What material would you use to print a coffee mug?
Clay
REALLY wish more people would design 3D printable stuff FOR 3D printing as opposed to constantly trying to replicate stuff that’s designed for other manufacturing methods that doesn’t or barely works for 3D prints.
People either make things ridiculously thin to match metal versions, or WAYYYY too thick for the application. Like enclosures for little PCBs, etc that are like a half inch thick.
That curved handle look like the antithesis of "ergonomic." My wrist hurts just from looking at you hold it
Man you background sound was the same as my doorbell 😂😂😂
Being a 3d printing enthusiast I also find this video being a bit too favouring manufacturing method over requirements.
Adding one argument to the discussion for the classic design: I like to have my cups hanging on the hooks and none of the proposed alternative handles would allow for that.
Still: I really enjoy watching videos on this channel and knowing that someone pushes for 3d printing as mass production option is something really great to see.
I like the ideas as a design study and an exploration of using your manufacturing techniques in the product design.
Sir, if i dare say so myself, the solution to good designs not working when produced using 3d printing is just to produce them N O R M A L L Y
I have to disagree with the premise laid here, I suggest rather that 3D printing is an inappropriate method to make cups. In fact plastic is an inappropriate material for making cups too, glazed ceramic or stainless steel are way better.
Do you know the difference from stone to ceramic?
FWIW, When you're working in clay handles are hard too. :)
Ladle: Ladles are for cooking, not drinking while cozy under the covers.
Fin & dimple: Butter fingers. Dimple isn't enough grip for me.
Knob: Isn't that just a stubby Ladle. I don't think mug perpendicular to hand would work, as the partially filled mug would want to rotate upright.
Ring: An entire mug of coffee on *1* finger? And yeah, what you said about range of motion.
S-curve: Umm... Lefties.
Okay. So digging through the cabinet to really examine the mugs...
Semi-heart: Really comfortable. Can press pinkie against bottom for more support. For 3D printing, kinda like a hollowed and rounded fin.
Ellipse: Honestly, my grip varies widely with this, but if the mug isn't too hot to touch directly, I often grasp the mug directly with fingers *forward* through the handle (because butter fingers.)
Would be cool to see if you can find anything about about Formula 1 using 3D printers or 3D printed parts. I would think having a 3D printer on hand would be great to make any small parts they need. I mean, with the speed and accuracy of the bambu X1C I feel that could be a real asset.
We only focus on mass production (at least 1000+ pieces, and preferably beyond 100K) and Formula 1 is basically bespoke.
This video highlights what I have been saying for years: that there is a HUGE difference between designing something and engineering it. When I hear that someone is a "designer" what this tells me is that they work strictly around the aesthetics but when I hear that they are an "engineer" I see them focusing on the functionality of both construction and end use. Too many companies focus on designing items today and this has lead to things that are pretty but poorly engineered. When design is the primary goal there are too many sacrifices made. Engineering has this same issue however the sacrifices there are usually in the aesthetics. being a function over form type of guy this works well for me. I don't want any of my money being used to 'prettify" something if it means that it will be poorly engineered.
As both an engineer and industrial designer I can tell you that this couldn't be further from the truth. Industrial design always keeps the manufacturing process in mind. Some products are more like artistic sculptures than good industrial design however. I've seen a pepper mill yesterday that was in the shape of a bottle - that's just bad design at this point. Not only is this object pretending to be something that it isn't, there is just no indication of how to use it. In my experience engineers are often very focused on the process but don't really have an eye for the users needs. The problem with the term designer is that there is no protected job title as there is for engineers, at least in Germany that is. Everybody can call themselves a designer without proper education in the field.
Imagine thinking design is only about aesthetics. I recommend reading "The Design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman.
Thankfully designers exist, otherwise cups would just be without a handle because "it's only aesthetic and doesn't fulfill the only possible requirement an engineer can think of: to hold liquid"
@@randoguy7488 I guess then it all comes down to how we think of it. To me, the cup would be engineered with the handle as a functional addition whereas the designer would focus on the shape and making it look a certain way. Perhaps there are too many definitions for the two terms but when I went to school engineering was all about the structure and physical properties whereas design was all about aethetics and "art". Using your example, the engineer would say 'This cup needs something for me to better grip it with that will also prevent me from burning my hand when I pick it up". The designer would say "this cup needs something that I can hold the cup with but it should look nice and follow the lines of my hand. It'd be good if it also had a nice organic flow to it". Possibly there is a little bit of each in one another and maybe, from my own observances, people often drift far too far over into one camp or the other. But again, in my experience, a designer doesn't take functionality into mind. If they did we would not wind up with so many stupid products that serve no real purpose other than to look nice "over there". And if more engineers were listened to instead of being pushed aside for design we'd have products that worked VERY well with no functionality compromises. A designer would take out the headphone jack from a phone because it looks better whereas an engineer would find a way to keep it there. Just my 2 cents.
@@Enjoymentboythe idea that a designer doesn’t take functionality into mind is an incorrect assertion. I would argue that most of most designers’ job involve outlining who the user is, what problems they are facing, and what can be done to alleviate those problems. I would also add that aesthetics are a function in of themselves, and shouldn’t be discounted as superfluous. Humans are emotional beings, and the aesthetics of the objects we use can have an emotional impact on us. I’ll acknowledge that some people prefer purely utilitarian products, and that there are plenty of products where utilitarianism and strict functionality make sense, but that is certainly not always the case, especially in consumer product goods.
@@adrian1689 Well put. I honestly hear you. My experience is that something engineered will be in use 20-30 years after it is produced whereas something that is designed will wind up in a garage sale with in a few years. 🙂
man just forgot left-handers exist at the end
one easy solution that keeps the benefits of the ring or C-shaped handle: just make it a little more of an S-curve so that its not as aggressive of an angle for the printer to try to do and it has the same benefits of the fin design plus the benefits of the c-shape
I appreciate your suggestions all over the place! Now I make a beautiful mug and put hot coffee in it...
You can make the loop by printing it flat and bending it with heat afterwards, you can also buy a superior plastic cup for very cheap.
Having no thumb on my right hand I would have to make a left-handed planar handle so I could use my thumber on my left hand as the opposing side support. Now I just need a left-handed fork! 🤣
Yeah, overlooking the handedness of this design is a big accessibility fail. All the designs printed here have functional disadvantages that are overlooked, and a simple conventional handle loop tuned not to need overhangs or support was completely omitted. 🤦
@@daliasprints9798 Design is never easy when you are aiming at a broad audience. But it does creae the opportunity to create specialized products for markets, groups, and applications.
Just a thought but, ex ceramicist here and I just want to say that the handle was always added to cups. So maybe there's a two part design that would work, though, with a little glue.
How about some kind of knuckleduster in an arc equal to the handle arc?
A classic case of an engine creating a problem and then solving it. Just make the normal handle but where the bottom of the handle begins connected to the cylinder that way it doesn’t require supports. Is there a 3d printing process that make food safe items?
I love how literally every comment is just dragging this video. you invented a poor solution to a problem that doesnt exist
Mass-production 3d printing sounds weird to me... 3d printing is really slow compared to injection molding etc. So it's currently only useful for one off production of some custom thing or prototyping. (Or for very expensive special purpose things that are impossible to make with normal methods.) And by the time we have printers that are basically Star Trek replicators that are so cheap and fast that it's sensible to use it for mass production, the printers are probably also good enough to print any complex shape with overhangs without issue.